Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> While I don't disagree with this sentiment, keep in mind that Debian
> itself is sometimes guilty of adding changes to packages when the
> upstream may or may not approve. Of course, we'll justify by saying
> that "users want it", or that it is in "the best interests of the
> users", but isn't that exactly the same excuse used by Ubuntu?
That's right.
The objection is not to changes in Ubuntu. The objection is to a
refusal to submit patches back.
> I can give a couple of examples; one is way back when, before I took
> over the maintenance of the e2fsprogs package, and was merely the
> upstream author. The then maintainer of e2fsprogs attempted to add
> support for filesystems > 2GB, but botched the job, and the result was
> people with filesystems > 2GB would in some circumstances, get their
> filesystems trashed. Of course, those people complained directly to
> me, and the reputation of e2fsprogs took a hit as a result. I was
> pissed, but I was informed there was nothing I could do; the
> maintainer of the package can do whatever they want, upstream wishes
> be d*mned, unless you try to go through a rather painful appeal
> process via a then-relatively inactive technical committeee.
Actually, upstream maintainers have no voice before the technical
committee, which exists to resolve disputes between Debian developers,
not between Debian developers and outsiders.
The question here is *NOT* whether Ubuntu has good patches, but
whether they contribute back, via the BTS, patches which are relevant
to the Debian upstream.
Thomas